Go to page

Go to page

brit empire is myth by british to sell this to world... and even american's not buying it. American historians do not consider brit empire as real empire because it was never direct enough... brits were not in control of legislation, justice or even social aspects of 70% of India... brits were in just in-alliance with Indian kings initially supplying weapons in return for trade favours and later on from 1857 for lip service to queen (just to say yes you are queen, in return for not inciting neighboring kings to attack, that too stopped after 1858.... brits just stayed for another 60 years in whole Indian confusion of Hindu, Muslim, Sikhs.... in 1858 Sikh's saved brits as sikhs did not trust Hindus or Muslims of that time (to know why they did not read Panipat), So Sikhs and Bengali's provided brits with loyal military to hand in for 50-60 years... by 1920 it was even clear to brits that they had to leave.... finally Subhas assembled a military in 2nd world war to which after war gave brit's an ultimatum to leave India...

there was hardly anything empire like besides loot and exploitation in whatever rule brits are referring to. trains and post was built to loot effectively...

brit rule was from 1858 to 1947 - hardly 90 years that was also indirect rule, much much indirect than any of other kings rules referred here... Please make the years of british rule to 90 years and push it even below Maratha empire.

Now compare that to real empire and power of an empire - when a real Maratha empire ruled Hindu religion prospered, ruling population was going to Maratha kings for justice or favours, Mughal king take important decisions only after go ahead from Peshwa, Nizam was paying taxes to Maratha empire for over 80 years,
Such was fear about Maratha empire that even bengally Nawab fearing of annexation by Marathas in 1760's - invited brits to rescue them.

EIC took large amount of money from nawab in return for helping them in battles with Maratha. Battle of plassey is a joke where EIC entered bangla (current bangladesh) without single bullet or cannon being fired, with money paid by a muslim to rule himself fearing Hindu empire's attack.
Next in line was Nizam who accepted EIC alliance rule - again muslim king which has been paying 25%+ in taxes to Maratha empire for over 100 years...
Moghul emperor has been paying taxes to Maratha empire since year 1760 until 1802 in formal setup...

Maratha Empire - after defeating Moghul's and Nizam, Maratha's defeated Portuguese on western coast of india, Maratha's fought with Afgans in Panipat and Attock in Pakistan and in Punjab in 1760's, Maratha's destroyed Bangla-desh in bargi raids of 1760's causing Nawab to invite EIC for help, and Marathas were ruling in Tanjore in South Indian city of Chennai.... This is called Empire and Power of Empire from 1674 - 1818 => 144 years completely annihilating invaders of India; Marathas did go down and as Heros... no amount of western/british propaganda can hide truth about it.

During brit rule in india entire british machinary were employed to wipe Glorious Maratha Empire from Indian history, to distort Hindu history fearing violent resurrection/rebellion; and to show themselves good at home in england; they could not do it,

Contrary to saving Hindu's - It was Hindus who destroyed Moghul and made them Maratha vassal almost a half century even before brits arrived in Bengal,
Just like islamic raiders, brits also continued to loot india along with muslims and some hindu elite kings of India denying Hindu's their freedom...

Hindus and Hindus alone saved themselves from both Muslims and from Brits...

as you can see there is no brit in India.... and this map is applicable until 1818
So brit rule of alliance only started in 1818...
Until 1857 there was no support from state to this setup - essentially company and Indian Kings had sort of setup - and by 1930 declaration of freedom was signed so... that is only 70 odd years of confusion between Hindu, Muslim and Sikh's of continent allowing brits to stay in india...

please see BBC resource your selves; also rule in bangladesh does not mean rule of India as bangladesh is not in today's India and also EIC managing bangladesh on behalf of Nawab in-lieu of payment to maintain - is not start of empire. Intil 1818 - Brit's had only mysore In India from 1799. Maratha empire signed treaty of alliance only in 1818 and even then it was only alliance rule...

brit empire is myth by british to sell this to world... and even american's not buying it. American historians do not consider brit empire as real empire because it was never direct enough... brits were not in control of legislation, justice or even social aspects of 70% of India... brits were in just in-alliance with Indian kings initially supplying weapons in return for trade favours and later on from 1857 for lip service to queen (just to say yes you are queen, in return for not inciting neighboring kings to attack, that too stopped after 1858.... brits just stayed for another 60 years in whole Indian confusion of Hindu, Muslim, Sikhs.... in 1858 Sikh's saved brits as sikhs did not trust Hindus or Muslims of that time (to know why they did not read Panipat), So Sikhs and Bengali's provided brits with loyal military to hand in for 50-60 years... by 1920 it was even clear to brits that they had to leave.... finally Subhas assembled a military in 2nd world war to which after war gave brit's an ultimatum to leave India...

Very much incorrect,whole of india,including the most prosperous states were under direct british rule,princely states that were in "alliance"(they were not allies,they were subject of the crown,and under protection of the crown after getting their ass handed due various factors) were quite small,heck AFAIK there were 200+ princely states in rajasthan alone.

and british controlled princely states indirectly.
they ruled 60% of land and around 75% of population DIRECTLY(ruling the most populous regions of india directly)

there was hardly anything empire like besides loot and exploitation in whatever rule brits are referring to. trains and post was built to loot effectively...

brit rule was from 1858 to 1947 - hardly 90 years that was also indirect rule, much much indirect than any of other kings rules referred here... Please make the years of british rule to 90 years and push it even below Maratha empire.

Yes british did loot,however their rule was from second anglo maratha war to 1947,about 140 years to say the least,much more than 70-80 years of marathas(who too ruled mostly indirectly with having even less control then british over their subordinate states)

Now compare that to real empire and power of an empire - when a real Maratha empire ruled Hindu religion prospered, ruling population was going to Maratha kings for justice or favours, Mughal king take important decisions only after go ahead from Peshwa, Nizam was paying taxes to Maratha empire for over 80 years,
Such was fear about Maratha empire that even bengally Nawab fearing of annexation by Marathas in 1760's - invited brits to rescue them.

If you keep this nonsense up,you will be banned from the site ASAP,stop with your religious nationalist nonsense.
what does "real empire" even means?its a worthless term anyway.
and after 3rd battle of panipat marathas were hardly even an "empire" let alone a "real empire"

EIC took large amount of money from nawab in return for helping them in battles with Maratha. Battle of plassey is a joke where EIC entered bangla (current bangladesh) without single bullet or cannon being fired, with money paid by a muslim to rule himself fearing Hindu empire's attack.
Next in line was Nizam who accepted EIC alliance rule - again muslim king which has been paying 25%+ in taxes to Maratha empire for over 100 years...
Moghul emperor has been paying taxes to Maratha empire since year 1760 until 1802 in formal setup...

Maratha Empire - after defeating Moghul's and Nizam, Maratha's defeated Portuguese on western coast of india, Maratha's fought with Afgans in Panipat and Attock in Pakistan and in Punjab in 1760's, Maratha's destroyed Bangla-desh in bargi raids of 1760's causing Nawab to invite EIC for help, and Marathas were ruling in Tanjore in South Indian city of Chennai.... This is called Empire and Power of Empire from 1674 - 1818 => 144 years completely annihilating invaders of India; Marathas did go down and as Heros... no amount of western/british propaganda can hide truth about it.

You do realize this is one the worst things marathas did,right?they pilaged countryside effectively alienating bengalis,they ruined a powerful but rich empire but failed to capture it and use for their own,they basically handed a cash cow to british,that not something to be proud of anyway.

this is why i like discussing effective rule,or atleast time period where empire was atleast in a position to project atleast some kind of power.

Vijayanagara
for me that would be from harihara 2 to venkata 2-1377 to 1614
around 240 years(you are incorrect to think vijaynagara ended with talikota,tirumala deva raya recovered almost all of territory,defeated sultans even after talikota,however their power did decline)

Marathas
From 1728 to 1810,baji rao's victories to yashwant rao's death
82 years

obviously in their peak,their power projection was way above that of vijayanagara,same goes for mughals and british

Mughals
From babur in 1530 to aurangzeb in 1707
177 years

british
From capture of bengal to eventual indian independence
1765 to 1947

Very much incorrect,whole of india,including the most prosperous states were under direct british rule,princely states that were in "alliance"(they were not allies,they were subject of the crown,and under protection of the crown after getting their ass handed due various factors) were quite small,heck AFAIK there were 200+ princely states in rajasthan alone.

and british controlled princely states indirectly.
they ruled 60% of land and around 75% of population DIRECTLY(ruling the most populous regions of india directly)

In correct - 70% of most populated areas were ruled in-directly. you said 200+ princely states, now read the tready of subsidiary alliance and you will see brits could not change even most basic rituals of Hindu, Muslims or Sikhs.... they change few like Sati may be after local revolutionaries supported it. Check british sources they themselves confirm 70% of India was in-directly ruled. Brits were in-charge of sort of foriegh relations (since these affect trade most) and military initiatives by kings, for rest rails etc they did not fact any oppositions from local populations anyways... where social friction started kings sort of mediated for brits.

Yes british did loot,however their rule was from second anglo maratha war to 1947,about 140 years to say the least,much more than 70-80 years of marathas(who too ruled mostly indirectly with having even less control then british over their subordinate states)

Why even 2nd maratha war.... now it is partial bias from your side... if you want to consider their rule from 1599 when moghul gave them 1 sq km then so be it... i do not think thought until 1858 there was any sort of agreed british rule, bunch of rebellions with couple of kings support made brit hang in by threads in 1858, even brits agreed they were out in 1858 had it not been some help from indian friends, it is sufficient to know that they were a party in indian equation by 1858 but certainly not firm ruler or anything....

If you keep this nonsense up,you will be banned from the site ASAP,stop with your religious nationalist nonsense.
what does "real empire" even means?its a worthless term anyway.
and after 3rd battle of panipat marathas were hardly even an "empire" let alone a "real empire"

Honestly you can keep your nonsense up yours as well, and sure ban me... i don't give rat's you know what.... kendal here keep ranting his white supramist agenda for days... and you have to be listen to that $h*t... but when i add truth of our kings it, it hurts you right... i could be anything communist, socialist or nationalist, not your business really, if you go personal then i will have to go personal mate.... so keep your stuff up yours and discuss facts... i will defends my facts you do same...

You do realize this is one the worst things marathas did,right?they pilaged countryside effectively alienating bengalis,they ruined a powerful but rich empire but failed to capture it and use for their own,they basically handed a cash cow to british,that not something to be proud of anyway.

Every ruler has done it, Samrat Ashoka has done it, and your brit friends has done it.... listen to the point. Point being made here is Maratha military despite being limited in resources were fighting far flung battles without allies... and they did succeed for over century with numerous advisories...

I can also see your ego may be getting hurt since you said me nationalist looks like you are fake secularist with more love moghul rule - here are some point for you to do some research and find :
who Nizam was paying taxes to ?
when Maratha entered Delhi first and why did Nizam or Nawabs not help moghuls ?
when did Moghul started paying taxes to Marathas first and why ?
why nawab of Bengal could not pay his military and why did he invited EIC in bengal to defend bengal from whom ?
why Portuguese could not extend out from Goa who fought wars with Portuguese to keep them limited ?
why british despite arriving in India in year 1600 till 1815 could not acquire substantial rule, despite Nader entering delhi in 1737, Maratha entering delhi 1739 ?
in 1858 how did british survived ? who saved them and why ?
in 1945 Indian navy and Indian army declined to take orders from brits, what INA trials has to do with this and then why brits immediately agreed to leave...

coming to british empire myth read through above link - not that it is true source but many points make sense- if you take out 70% of india then there are hardly any forces worth noting in unhabitted lands of canada, australia or even remaining 30% in India... considering those facts Vijayanagar and Maratha empire's appear much more credible

this is why i like discussing effective rule,or atleast time period where empire was atleast in a position to project atleast some kind of power.

Vijayanagara
for me that would be from harihara 2 to venkata 2-1377 to 1614
around 240 years(you are incorrect to think vijaynagara ended with talikota,tirumala deva raya recovered almost all of territory,defeated sultans even after talikota,however their power did decline)

Marathas
From 1728 to 1810,baji rao's victories to yashwant rao's death
82 years

obviously in their peak,their power projection was way above that of vijayanagara,same goes for mughals and british

Mughals
From babur in 1530 to aurangzeb in 1707
177 years

british
From capture of bengal to eventual indian independence
1765 to 1947

this is complete biased wikipedia writing... Maratha sovereign kingdom was Officially declared in 1674... This is Official declaration of Empire, in fact Maratha were issuing passport sort of papers for traders in their country in 1674... and warning Moghuls not to enter Maratha terretories, you still do not consider it start of their kingdom and East india company's private company arrangement of alliance with Mir Jafar to help him defend bengal you consider start of empire !! how much biased can you get.... you are completely biased historians...

Shivaji did take his first forts and declared those independent in 1650's but lets stick to his official declaration of Sovereign Hindu State...

Vijayanagara
for me that would be from harihara 2 to venkata 2-1377 to 1614
around 240 years(you are incorrect to think vijaynagara ended with talikota,tirumala deva raya recovered almost all of territory,defeated sultans even after talikota,however their power did decline)

Marathas
From 1674 (Coronation of First Maratha Emperor to 1818 Pune signing treaty of alliance)
144 years

obviously in their peak,their power projection was way above that of vijayanagara,same goes for mughals and british

Mughals
From babur in 1530 to aurangzeb in 1707
177 years

british
From capture of bengal to eventual indian independence
1858 (British government takes over formally involving British queen & England) to 1947 (brits leave India)
89 years

In correct - 70% of most populated areas were ruled in-directly. you said 200+ princely states, now read the tready of subsidiary alliance and you will see brits could not change even most basic rituals of Hindu, Muslims or Sikhs.... they change few like Sati may be after local revolutionaries supported it. Check british sources they themselves confirm 70% of India was in-directly ruled. Brits were in-charge of sort of foriegh relations (since these affect trade most) and military initiatives by kings, for rest rails etc they did not fact any oppositions from local populations anyways... where social friction started kings sort of mediated for brits.

Princely states made up 28% of population ONLY,and 40% of area.
this mean british ruled 72% of population directly and 60% of area directly,your whole post is based on unsupported nonsense.

brits did not wanted to change the rituals,as it served little purpose,they were having complete control over external actions of the state,and pretty much on resource of the state,why do you think rituals mattered anyway?and for the rituals they wanted to change,they did that like sati(cost to benefit ratio of such a move was way less,hence brits didn't care) this doesn't change the fact that all of india was subordinate to british,either directly or indirectly.

Why even 2nd maratha war.... now it is partial bias from your side... if you want to consider their rule from 1599 when moghul gave them 1 sq km then so be it... i do not think thought until 1858 there was any sort of agreed british rule, bunch of rebellions with couple of kings support made brit hang in by threads in 1858, even brits agreed they were out in 1858 had it not been some help from indian friends, it is sufficient to know that they were a party in indian equation by 1858 but certainly not firm ruler or anything....

Because marathas lost doab,delhi and pretty much all their north indian influence during second maratha war,with only holkars presenting a challenge and securing central india from british threat,even he died in 1810.
its about power projection,british ruled bengal from 1765,and after it they continously dominated one power or the other,till 1800s and finally capturing all of india by 1810.
3rd anglo maratha war was mostly war against raiding pindaries,marathas hardly posed a thread after yashwant rao's death.

Honestly you can keep your nonsense up yours as well, and sure ban me... i don't give rat's you know what.... kendal here keep ranting his white supramist agenda for days... and you have to be listen to that $h*t... but when i add truth of our kings it, it hurts you right... i could be anything communist, socialist or nationalist, not your business really, if you go personal then i will have to go personal mate.... so keep your stuff up yours and discuss facts... i will defends my facts you do same...

Being polar opposite of kandal is hardly an achievement,and with your rants you are actually proving him right in some sense.
and you didn't reply,what is a "real empire",and how were marathas even an "empire" after 1761,let alone a "real empire"

Every ruler has done it, Samrat Ashoka has done it, and your brit friends has done it.... listen to the point. Point being made here is Maratha military despite being limited in resources were fighting far flung battles without allies... and they did succeed for over century with numerous advisories...

What does this have to do with current topic?
The topic was marathas and effect of their invasion,i do find maratha history quite glorious,with only bengal chapter sticking out due to how devastating it was,i am not blind to defend every crap they did.

I can also see your ego may be getting hurt since you said me nationalist looks like you are fake secularist with more love moghul rule - here are some point for you to do some research and find :
who Nizam was paying taxes to ?
when Maratha entered Delhi first and why did Nizam or Nawabs not help moghuls ?

Actually nawab of bengal defeated marathas whenever he faced them in open battle,he decided to caese hostility because marathas were targetting civillian countryside and burning his empire,hardly a thing to be proud of.
heck isn't this why hindu nationalist like yourself hate muslim rulers?LOL.

why Portuguese could not extend out from Goa who fought wars with Portuguese to keep them limited ?

Mostly because of mughals,they were too powerful,aurangzeb even defeated brits in child's war.
and main reason why brits were able to win was mostly 3rd battle of panipat,and death of all maratha leaders in short span of 5-7 years from 1795 to 1802.

and what's your criteria of "substantial rule",brits ruled awadh and bengal from 1765,after weakening of mughal and maratha powers.

in 1858 how did british survived ? who saved them and why ?
in 1945 Indian navy and Indian army declined to take orders from brits, what INA trials has to do with this and then why brits immediately agreed to leave...

In 1858,brits survived mostly because indians were simply not co-ordinated enough,and support was not really given,especially in south india.
and by 1945,it was quite clear that brits were going leave,you do know about WW2,right?
INA trials might have surely sped up the process.

coming to british empire myth read through above link - not that it is true source but many points make sense- if you take out 70% of india then there are hardly any forces worth noting in unhabitted lands of canada, australia or even remaining 30% in India... considering those facts Vijayanagar and Maratha empire's appear much more credible

this is complete biased wikipedia writing... Maratha sovereign kingdom was Officially declared in 1674... This is Official declaration of Empire, in fact Maratha were issuing passport sort of papers for traders in their country in 1674... and warning Moghuls not to enter Maratha terretories, you still do not consider it start of their kingdom and East india company's private company arrangement of alliance with Mir Jafar to help him defend bengal you consider start of empire !! how much biased can you get.... you are completely biased historians...

Shivaji did take his first forts and declared those independent in 1650's but lets stick to his official declaration of Sovereign Hindu State...

Dude the 'Hindu' is known to be anti-Hindu communist sicular news-paper and the number's you are quoting are wrong / don't make sense, All population centers in India like Hyderabad, Pune, Delhi, Chennai were under Princely states or Nawabs,
I will also quote some articles from 'Sandyanand' if that is what your knowledge bank demands

You are pure non-sense, and full of $h*t .... Quote the proper references from non-political references... I m quoting references from british sources itself

brits did not wanted to change the rituals,as it served little purpose,they were having complete control over external actions of the state,and pretty much on resource of the state,why do you think rituals mattered anyway?and for the rituals they wanted to change,they did that like sati(cost to benefit ratio of such a move was way less,hence brits didn't care) this doesn't change the fact that all of india was subordinate to british,either directly or indirectly.

Ohh they DO, they do wanted to rule directly; they burnt their hands so badly in 1858... when all those brits were killed/women and kids disappeared; population in england was questioning lot... were not in support of indian adventures of EIC; so much so EIC had to hand over Indian affairs.
Britis were highly fraughtful of Kings inciting another rebellion and hence they tried a lot to control flow of information in india.
They do wanted Indian's to accept queen like goddess.... alas neither Muslim nor Hindu general population accepted that !! it is just indians themselves had so many enemies within (just like you and me on opposite sides of views), they did not knew how to solve this puzzel of hindu, muslim, sikh, high caste, low caste, inferior weapons/technology - entanglement.

Because marathas lost doab,delhi and pretty much all their north indian influence during second maratha war,with only holkars presenting a challenge and securing central india from british threat,even he died in 1810.
its about power projection,british ruled bengal from 1765,and after it they continously dominated one power or the other,till 1800s and finally capturing all of india by 1810.
3rd anglo maratha war was mostly war against raiding pindaries,marathas hardly posed a thread after yashwant rao's death.

Well Brits did not have Punjab until 1949 and also almost 60% part of India until 1918... then how could you count rule from 1657, this clearly shows your non-sense apporach and biased writing on forum... you are not even considering Coronation recorded across world as Birth of kingdom but bribely plassley over insignificant 2-3% of influence in bangladesh is suddenly empire for you... again until 1949 Brits did not have Punjab and until 1918... they did not have Marathas..
With your approach of influence brit rule should be counted from at most from 1849 to 1947... that is still 97 years...
Honeslty brits themselves count if from 1858... it is indian politics of Congress who is projecting wrong info in Indian Media and teaching $hit in indian school....

keep reading your hindu-communist secular news paper and keep learning you school book wriiten by some congressi idiot; please dont write those stupid things here.... or may be in bangladesh school they teach 300 years rule...

Being polar opposite of kandal is hardly an achievement,and with your rants you are actually proving him right in some sense.
and you didn't reply,what is a "real empire",and how were marathas even an "empire" after 1761,let alone a "real empire"

You could lick kendal's; In 1771 Maratha's put their General as Moghul Viceroy In Delhi Court and Moghuls were paying taxes again to Maratha as soon as Abdali was finished, Abdali could not digest fighing with Maratha even though he some how managed stay upper in battle. Ultimately Maratha's did came back with-in 10 years Delhi after 1761's....
In 17 th century - after loosing in Panipat Maratha ruled in Delhi again in 1771, Maratha's fought 3 Wars with Brits, Brits had to ask Marathas to stay neutral while defeating Tipu, and 1858 (almost a century after) half of fighting forces had Maratha commanders...
If that is Not Empire then what is ?
Abdali could not sustain even win of Panipat, within 7 years rebellious Sikhs destroyed half of his kingdom
Brits hanging by their hairs in 1858 in India (against Marathas), were no were in 1958... not only that they could not even save Suez debacle... in middle east then
within 60-70 years of rule Brits had started loosing influence in India.. Declaration for Full Independence was signed in Lahore in 1930's; it was Gandhi's peaceful policy allowed them few more decades.. and in 1944 Indian Navy and Army had to warn them to leave india in next 3 years, as they are not fulfilling agreements of 1930's...or else they could all be killed... Now that you consider empire...
But people who fought from 1650 to 1850.... from Delhi in North to Bangalore/Chennai in South... having formal coronotion from 1674 until shared rule of 1818... you do Not consider Empire...

Think yourself m i being non-sensial here or you are building your knowledge from politcs driven media sources ??
Read some real news paper... even better read real honest british sources (most of which are not well published by brits fearing backlash in england against governement)
How divided brit government and people can get - see Brexit then you will know how much people's opinion matter in britain despite 90% elites wanting to stay in EU - since people have voted to leave EU by marginal win; UK has lost almost trillion $..
All this fake empior stories were necessary to spread to maintain public support back home in england for brits then...
funnly today brit's do not need this support so they are coming clean, but political people like you keep spreding non-sense, stupidity, keeping indian's eternally in dark about their great past acheivements...

it seems you are anti-Maratha or colonial empire supporter some sorts confused guys who is reading communist newspaper...
start reading real stuff dude...

also Bengal and Punjab are not same thing - sorry to hurt your ego - Bengal was enslaved with wish of their own Nawab and population in 1657 until 1947 for almost 300 years - Punjab/Pakistan on other hand was only under brits from 1849 to 1957 for 90 odd years;
and real rule wasn't started until 1857

[/QUOTE]

What does this have to do with current topic?
The topic was marathas and effect of their invasion,i do find maratha history quite glorious,with only bengal chapter sticking out due to how devastating it was,i am not blind to defend every crap they did.

When marathas first entered delhi,mughals asked nizam for help which lead to battle of bhopal,atleast learn history you are so fond of.

Actually nawab of bengal defeated marathas whenever he faced them in open battle,he decided to caese hostility because marathas were targetting civillian countryside and burning his empire,hardly a thing to be proud of.
heck isn't this why hindu nationalist like yourself hate muslim rulers?LOL.

Dude i am not discussing who is good people, I am discussing Empires... Now you keep referring bengal raids, and your self pride heavily damaged to even thing straight about your own people - here is bit - Bengal was enemy of Maratha's - if they would not raid enemy territory then what would they do ? Compare this to your brit masters... they killed Bengalies in Famine while ruling them... Churchil even said - let bengalies die if so....
Maratha's did not raid their own country, they did collect taxes and sometimes heavy taxes as damages, but they did not kill their own people.... but brits killed people whom they ruled..
Again it is evident you want to hate hindu-nationalist probably your muslim ego not able to accept that Hindu's did build an Empire to tame all muslim kings of india in 18th century... and just like your siraj-ud-daula, mir kasim ancestor who let enemy britain enter in india you are taking brit side.... this is exact mentality of 17th centuery bengaly nawab - afraid of hindu dominance he was even ready to ally with brits...

baji rao mostly,and honestly i really think i know more about maratha history then you do.

Mostly because of mughals,they were too powerful,aurangzeb even defeated brits in child's war.
and main reason why brits were able to win was mostly 3rd battle of panipat,and death of all maratha leaders in short span of 5-7 years from 1795 to 1802.

and what's your criteria of "substantial rule",brits ruled awadh and bengal from 1765,after weakening of mughal and maratha powers.

In 1858,brits survived mostly because indians were simply not co-ordinated enough,and support was not really given,especially in south india.
and by 1945,it was quite clear that brits were going leave,you do know about WW2,right?
INA trials might have surely sped up the process.

Historum

Founded in 2006, Historum is a history forum dedicated to history discussions and historical events. Our community welcomes everyone from around the world to discuss world history, historical periods, and themes in history - military history, archaeology, arts and culture, and history in books and movies.